A female applicant has been prevented from joining the armed forces , because she had a neck tattoo, threequarters of which was above the collar line and up round the ear. The tattoo looks like a string of stars rising from a spaceship or something.Good decision or not?

Rules is rules. She knew them.

I think the employer should have the choice.

What , even if she was young and foolish when she had it done in the days when she thought she was going to be a disc jockey or something?

Wonder if we would also turn away anyone who because of their native homeland tradition of scoring the skin into raised patterns on the face ,now had decorative scarring showing?

Its not like she would be front of desk at an office or shop, where she might put customers in the wrong frame of mind, is it.Under those circumstances it should definitely be left to the judgement of the owners I think.

I think it would be better if she was allowed in , subject to all other normal checks, but then told because of the rules, she would have to use concealer whenever she was in formal military dress. Could that work?

She could then make her own choice as to what was most important to her . That in itself could be quite revealing I think as to her suitability .

Tattoo's now on young girls is so common place, so the powers that be might need to have a rethink. It could in no way affect her ability to be a good service woman.

Rules were relaxed in 2014:

http://www.army.mod.uk/news/26584.aspx

Maybe time to relax them a little more?

Maybe she should have gone for the Navy instead of the Air Force. The Armed Services have standards and they should be kept. Blokes aren't allowed to have that kind of tattoo either. Oh, and I did 34 years so don't get on my back as though I don't know what I'm on about.

No, as someone says, rules are rules. We all know what happens when they are relaxed. Much wants more, and where does one draw the line ?

We could have a line- up looking like Cherokee Indians !

The rules are there for a reason, relaxing them means that people will push for more and more changes. Its one person who couldn't get in, not like there's a shortage of applicants. My cousin has a ridiculous tattoo on his face and neck and applied for the military (not sure which branch) and he was told no but he got another job rather than whine about it. Now works in a care home and all the residents keep asking about the stories of his tattoos and he loves it there. If she really wanta to get in that badly she can have the tattoo removed, costs a couple of hundred quid rather than the milirary change all its policies and rules at a cost of probably more than that which the taxpayer will end up paying for probably. Why the discussion anyway??? Rules say no visable tattoos, she had one, say goodbye to her, case closed. Why has the discussion got this far?

Sorry but your opinion doesn't mean case closed, this is an open forum for discussion and it's not for you decide how long it should continue! !!!!!

How you look and present yourself instills confidence in people, our forces are mainly professionals and represent our country therefore we must have standards, just a point travelling home on the train from Liverpool we had what appeared to be two security guards ( not transport police) both in uniform hi viz, utility vests etc both spent the entire trip leaning by the doors on the train hands in pockets so engrossed in their conversation the train stopped and they actually had to move themselves (with some reluctance) to let people board, professional,no,instill confidence, pride in their appearance no, to me they projected the couldn't care less attitude, this then reflects itself on the people they have to deal with.

But it's not my opinion. It's not an open question. The rules are there in black and white...

i think they look awful,its like these people dying their hair
all these mad colors? its look at me please its for attention

1) Would you object to her using concealer - a heavy skin cover we used to call 'Panstick' ? Ugh! The 'rule' doesnt mention it so I reckon its 'discussable'

2) The 'spare room ' initiative . Law says you get less money if you have a spare room . Pointless discussing it -yes?

Great...your ok to kill someone but you cant have a tat visible. Makes sense.